Nermin DEMİRKOL, Özge PARLAR OZ, Mahmut ERCİL

A retrospective analysis of single dental implants in three different diameters

Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the distribution of intra-osseous dental implants in the mandible and maxilla applied tocorrect single missing tooth defects in terms of their size and length and retrospectively evaluate the implant loss rate.Material and methods: Demographic data showing the age/sex and dental implant records of 180 patients who underwent dentalimplant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from archival records. Patients with a missing single toothin the mandible and maxilla who had an implantation in three different diameters (4.1 mm, 4.5 mm, 4.8 mm) were included. Theanatomical localizations, height characteristics and rate of losses concerning the implants were analyzed by descriptive statisticalanalysis.Results: Of the 180 patients, 79 received dental implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm; 49 received dental implants with a diameter of4.5 mm and 52 received dental implants with a diameter of 4.8 mm, making it 221 in total. The mean age of the patients included inthe study was 43.1 years. Of the 180 patients, 105 (58.3%) were male and 75 (41.7%) were female. The length of the most commonlyused implant was 14 mm (34%) with a diameter of 4.1 mm (45.2%). Of the 221 implants examined, 111 were placed on the maxilla(50.22%) and 110 on the mandible (49.78%). Of the implants examined, 18 were implanted in the anterior region (8.14%); 33 in thepremolar region (15%) and 170 in the molar region (77%).Conclusion: This retrospective study found that single-tooth implant treatment covers a wide range of ages, mainly applied topatients aged 30 to 40 years. Treatment with single-tooth implants was shown to be a successful treatment with a high survival ratewhen factors such as implant diameter/length and age/sex of the patient are considered.

PDF

___

1. Rinke S, Roediger M, Eickholz P, et al. Technical and biological complications of singlemolar implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1024-30.
2. Yalcin M, Kaya B, Lacin N, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of endosteal implants with different macro designs on stress distribution in different bone qualities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:e43-e50.
3. Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2010;55:341-50.
4. Van Oosterwyck H, Duyck J, Vander Sloten J, et al. The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:407-18.
5. Kayabasi O, Yuzbasioglu E, Erzincanlı F. Static, dynamic and fatigue behaviors of dental implant using finite element method. Adv Eng Softw 2006;37:649-58
6. Meric G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, et al. Biomechanical effects of two different collar implant structures on stress distribution under cantilever fixed partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69:374-84.
7. Akça K, Iplikcioglu H. Finite element stress analysis of the influence of staggered versus straight placement of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:722-30.
8. Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akca K. Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent 2004;32:123-32.
9. Eltas A, Dundar DS, Uzun İH, ve ark. Dental implant başarısının ve hasta profilinin değerlendirilmesi: retrospektif bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013;23:1-8.
10. Lee JY, Park HJ, Kim JE, et al. A 5-year retrospective clinical study of the Dentium implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:229-35.
11. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, et al. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants,(I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Euro J Oral Sci 1998;106:527-51.
12. Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants,(II). Etiopathogenesis. Euro J Oral Sci 1998;106:721-64.
13. Esposito M, Thomsen P, Ericson LE, et al. Histopathologic observations on late oral implant failures. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000;2:18-32.
14. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10–16-year follow-up of non- submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:772-7.
15. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:197-212.
16. Celebi N, Soylu E, Gonen Z, et al. 3 ile 5 yıl arasında takibi yapılan dental implant başarısının geriye dönük olarak değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2013;16:20-4.
17. Shin SW, Bryant SR, Zarb GA. A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:52-8.
18. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:352-9.
19. Wyatt C, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:204-11.
20. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: a 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:303-11.
21. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang H-L, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) pisa consensus conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15.
22. Anitua E, Orive G. Finite element analysis of the influence of the offset placement of an implant supported prosthesis on bone stress distribution. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;89:275-81.
23. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, et al. The influence of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated implants related to crestal bone geometry: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422-31.
24. Okumura N, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, et al. Influence of maxillary cortical bone thickness, implant design and implant diameter on stress around implants: a threedimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2010;54:133-42.
25. Lin D, Li Q, Li W, et al. Dental implant induced bone remodeling and associated algorithms. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2009;2:410-32.
26. İplikcioglu H, Akca K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30:41-6.
27. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest: A three dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94.
28. Kong L, Gu Z, Li T, et al. Biomechanical optimization of implant diameter and length for immediate loading: a nonlinear finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:607-15.
29. Ding X, Liao SH, Zhu XH, et al. Effect of diameter and length on stress distribution of the alveolar crest around immediate loading implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:279-87.
30. Lee J-S, Lim Y-J. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of stress induced by different lengths of osseointegrated implants in the anterior maxilla. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2013;16:1143-9.
31. Urvasizoğlu GG, Saruhan N, Ataol M. Dental implant uygulamalarinin demografik ve klinik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 26:394-8.
32. Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, et al. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:74-81.